Here's some good news (maybe).
3.5 million in the budget for the MSIS

Still think the best way to increase freight rail volume is a 3rd party track owner for freight only track which receive funding for freight infrastructure only (like in WA and NSW), and massively reduced taxes in all areas of the rail industry, while leaving road freight taxes as is, and banning A doubles and B triples, especially on B and C (e.g. B220) roads

Announced today https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/400m-for-wa-rail-upgrade-after-record-grain-harvest $400m for grain lines in WA.  Where is the real money in Victoria?

Here's some good news (maybe).
3.5 million in the budget for the MSIS

Still think the best way to increase freight rail volume is a 3rd party track owner for freight only track which receive funding for freight infrastructure only (like in WA and NSW), and massively reduced taxes in all areas of the rail industry, while leaving road freight taxes as is, and banning A doubles and B triples, especially on B and C (e.g. B220) roads

Announced today https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/400m-for-wa-rail-upgrade-after-record-grain-harvest $400m for grain lines in WA.  Where is the real money in Victoria?

Wasting $150 billion that we don't have on a rail tunnel in Melbourne. More votes are what matters to these people, and that will get plenty of votes. Stuff the infrastructure that builds countries.

Announced today https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/400m-for-wa-rail-upgrade-after-record-grain-harvest $400m for grain lines in WA.  Where is the real money in Victoria?

Now look closely, there is only $200 million for the railway lines themselves, it is:
- $68 million for extended sidings at grain bins at eleven sites;
- $60 million for the upgrade from 16 TAL to 19 TAL on the Geraldton main line, but only a small part of the 16 TAL remaining on that line to allow for through movement at the higher axle loading;
- $72 million for the Narrogin Kulin line (Tier 3), but looks like only to the Wedin siding for the kaolin loading facility to be built there. The kaolin is to be shipped to the Kwinana plant for processing/export. Remainder of the Kulin line waiting on some funding/minimum quantities to be committed from CBH most likely.

The other $200 million is CBH funding upgrades to overhead loading bins and grain storage facilities across the network, not the rail itself.

At the moment, if it wasn't for Alcoa (southwest main), iron ore (SG lines and Morowa to Geraldton) and grain (everything else), we would only have the SG connection to the east coast remaining.
- Two million tonnes out of Greenbushes to Bunbury/Kwinana? Apparently not worth reopening 88km of closed line for that, road trains will handle it.
- Five high productivity hay plants on the Northam to Albany line alone? Apparently no freight there to chase, road trains will handle it.
- New grain facilities for Bunge (admittedly only ground storage in bulkheads) installed - not near freight lines, but the roads upgraded specifically for road trains (I know this, as I was the project manager for at least 37kms of those upgrades).

Cheers,

Matt

Here's some good news (maybe).
3.5 million in the budget for the MSIS

Still think the best way to increase freight rail volume is a 3rd party track owner for freight only track which receive funding for freight infrastructure only (like in WA and NSW), and massively reduced taxes in all areas of the rail industry, while leaving road freight taxes as is, and banning A doubles and B triples, especially on B and C (e.g. B220) roads

Announced today https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/400m-for-wa-rail-upgrade-after-record-grain-harvest $400m for grain lines in WA.  Where is the real money in Victoria?

Why should victoria get any money for this when what money it has already received was completely and utterly wasted. Victoria shouldn't need any grants if they had done the murray basin project properly in the first place.

Why should victoria get any money for this when what money it has already received was completely and utterly wasted. Victoria shouldn't need any grants if they had done the murray basin project properly in the first place.

Of course you are completely correct and I believe this is the reason why Vic is not getting the funds that it otherwise maybe entitled to.  Funds we do get are wasted without projects being completed.

And don't forget the Queensland Government has just announced this week a further $34-million funding for rail upgrades and bridge replacements on QR's Western Line.

There is absolutely nothing stopping the Victorian Government, with a GDP 22% larger than Queensland, funding its state-owned regional rail freight infrastructure without waiting for Federal handouts.

Why should victoria get any money for this when what money it has already received was completely and utterly wasted. Victoria shouldn't need any grants if they had done the murray basin project properly in the first place.

Of course you are completely correct and I believe this is the reason why Vic is not getting the funds that it otherwise maybe entitled to.  Funds we do get are wasted without projects being completed.

It's time for this whole section of rail to be converted to SG in Victoria. It's time to make anything west of southern cross that carries freight or regional rail passenger traffic in to SG. Then the ends of these lines could connect further north in to NSW at Hay, Narrandera, Griffith and onwards in multiple lines towards parkes. Connecting these victorian and nsw towns up more efficiently to each other for intermodal, grain and other freight tasks.

But if victoria just thinks it is going to get money without this conversion you should think again.

Here's some good news (maybe).
3.5 million in the budget for the MSIS

Still think the best way to increase freight rail volume is a 3rd party track owner for freight only track which receive funding for freight infrastructure only (like in WA and NSW), and massively reduced taxes in all areas of the rail industry, while leaving road freight taxes as is, and banning A doubles and B triples, especially on B and C (e.g. B220) roads

Announced today https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/400m-for-wa-rail-upgrade-after-record-grain-harvest $400m for grain lines in WA.  Where is the real money in Victoria?

Wasting $150 billion that we don't have on a rail tunnel in Melbourne. More votes are what matters to these people, and that will get plenty of votes. Stuff the infrastructure that builds countries.

The Suburban Rail Loop will benefit thousands of people every day and as it's around $3 Billion a year from this year onwards it's easily manageable within the states budget.

Mike.

Here's some good news (maybe).
3.5 million in the budget for the MSIS

Still think the best way to increase freight rail volume is a 3rd party track owner for freight only track which receive funding for freight infrastructure only (like in WA and NSW), and massively reduced taxes in all areas of the rail industry, while leaving road freight taxes as is, and banning A doubles and B triples, especially on B and C (e.g. B220) roads

Announced today https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/400m-for-wa-rail-upgrade-after-record-grain-harvest $400m for grain lines in WA.  Where is the real money in Victoria?

Wasting $150 billion that we don't have on a rail tunnel in Melbourne. More votes are what matters to these people, and that will get plenty of votes. Stuff the infrastructure that builds countries.

The Suburban Rail Loop will benefit thousands of people every day and as it's around $3 Billion a year from this year onwards it's easily manageable within the states budget.

Mike.

Will hardly move the economy like freight rail lines do (or have the potential to)
we could easily spend virtually nothing, and handball the lines to a private 3rd party operator (and have their track fees and modest government funding upgrade the track over time) and massively cut taxes for rail companies, anyone who puts a lot of their stuff on rail, and anyone who works for rail, and still get heaps of money back into the economy and help thousands. It's a way of massively improving a system without spending big bucks and putting us into even more debt.

When we talk about rail benefiting "the economy", we need to specify what part of the economy we're talking about. I'm no expert and I'm very much willing to agree that shifting as much freight as possible to rail would benefit the economy as a whole. But it also seems obvious that there are a lot of people currently making a lot of money out of trucking and delivery that would be opposed to this kind of major shift back to rail.

Rail at the moment is so obviously coming second place to trucking that re-opening a few lines and upgrading a few services poses no real threat. But if we ever got around to "the infrastructure that builds countries", it seems likely that the operators and beneficiaries of the current infrastructure would push back hard at this threat to their business.

I'd love to think we'd get politicians who would prioritise the greater good over their buddies in the trucking industry once the anti-government campaigns began going on about (for example) how the shift to rail will put fair dinkum Aussie truckies out of work. But I'm not confident of that.

MB poorly specced with less capacity than former BG -  who approved that ?  Poorly costed by Victoria - who oversaw that ?  Poorly project managed by Victoria - who oversaw that ?  Then Victoria bleats to the Feds and gets most of the funds to correct all teh aforesaid shortfalls on Victoria's watch. No wonder the Feds are reluctant to give Victoria any extra funds towards MB works until such time as Victoria can prove it can actually spec, cost and project something professionally within spitting distance of the budgetted cost.

MB poorly specced with less capacity than former BG -  who approved that ?  Poorly costed by Victoria - who oversaw that ?  Poorly project managed by Victoria - who oversaw that ?  Then Victoria bleats to the Feds and gets most of the funds to correct all teh aforesaid shortfalls on Victoria's watch. No wonder the Feds are reluctant to give Victoria any extra funds towards MB works until such time as Victoria can prove it can actually spec, cost and project something professionally within spitting distance of the budgetted cost.

I recall saying somewhere on here years ago that the disaster of the Mildura SG would poison future standardisation projects for years to come.
Incompetent from start to finish.

MB poorly specced with less capacity than former BG -  who approved that ?  Poorly costed by Victoria - who oversaw that ?  Poorly project managed by Victoria - who oversaw that ?  Then Victoria bleats to the Feds and gets most of the funds to correct all teh aforesaid shortfalls on Victoria's watch. No wonder the Feds are reluctant to give Victoria any extra funds towards MB works until such time as Victoria can prove it can actually spec, cost and project something professionally within spitting distance of the budgetted cost.

If I was the feds, I would insist on a handover of the project to a non VLine entity (either like a NSW CRN arragement or ARTC itself) in exchange for any further funding.

When we talk about rail benefiting "the economy", we need to specify what part of the economy we're talking about. I'm no expert and I'm very much willing to agree that shifting as much freight as possible to rail would benefit the economy as a whole. But it also seems obvious that there are a lot of people currently making a lot of money out of trucking and delivery that would be opposed to this kind of major shift back to rail.

Rail at the moment is so obviously coming second place to trucking that re-opening a few lines and upgrading a few services poses no real threat. But if we ever got around to "the infrastructure that builds countries", it seems likely that the operators and beneficiaries of the current infrastructure would push back hard at this threat to their business.

I'd love to think we'd get politicians who would prioritise the greater good over their buddies in the trucking industry once the anti-government campaigns began going on about (for example) how the shift to rail will put fair dinkum Aussie truckies out of work. But I'm not confident of that.

Youve just got to look at the business case to see where the expected benefits go.

Its been taken offline but little ol me has a copy of the MBRP Business case.  

For the preferred option (Option 4, BCR 1.74, full standardisation) the undercounted benefits for the 30 year analysis

- Travel time savings           192.8         Producer benefit - lower cost of inventory as goods get to port quicker
- Transport cost savings     1908.4         Producer benefit - lower cost of transport (assumes all costs passed onto producers buy operators)
- Avoided externalities         319.6        Society benefit - lower noise, CO2e and other environmental damage
- Avoided crash costs           151.3        Society benefit - includes fewer deaths (incl economic loss of death) and associated cost of managing crashes
- Avoided road damage        137.5m     Government benefit - local/state/federal

The bulk of the benefits (2.1bn undiscounted, 759.3m discounted at 7%) were supposed to be reductions in cost, basically eliminating that cost from the production function of the grower.  Now you could question the assumptions behind that calculation, (and some of that is related to mineral sands traffic that hasnt eventuated), but it could be fair to say that the trucking industry is enjoying a lot of that extra cost being forced onto producers.

MB poorly specced with less capacity than former BG -  who approved that ?  Poorly costed by Victoria - who oversaw that ?  Poorly project managed by Victoria - who oversaw that ?  Then Victoria bleats to the Feds and gets most of the funds to correct all teh aforesaid shortfalls on Victoria's watch. No wonder the Feds are reluctant to give Victoria any extra funds towards MB works until such time as Victoria can prove it can actually spec, cost and project something professionally within spitting distance of the budgetted cost.

If I was the feds, I would insist on a handover of the project to a non VLine entity (either like a NSW CRN arragement or ARTC itself) in exchange for any further funding.

Yes, I've said this a few times now. We need a below rail operator where ALL the funding it receives goes to the freight only infrastructure and that only. It shouldn't be ARTC - they're useless. Just look at the Oaklands line, a line that has had hundreds of trains over the last couple years and it has only gone downhill. Although they would still be better than V/Line in many respects.

MB poorly specced with less capacity than former BG -  who approved that ?  Poorly costed by Victoria - who oversaw that ?  Poorly project managed by Victoria - who oversaw that ?  Then Victoria bleats to the Feds and gets most of the funds to correct all teh aforesaid shortfalls on Victoria's watch. No wonder the Feds are reluctant to give Victoria any extra funds towards MB works until such time as Victoria can prove it can actually spec, cost and project something professionally within spitting distance of the budgetted cost.

If I was the feds, I would insist on a handover of the project to a non VLine entity (either like a NSW CRN arragement or ARTC itself) in exchange for any further funding.

Yes, I've said this a few times now. We need a below rail operator where ALL the funding it receives goes to the freight only infrastructure and that only. It shouldn't be ARTC - they're useless. Just look at the Oaklands line, a line that has had hundreds of trains over the last couple years and it has only gone downhill. Although they would still be better than V/Line in many respects.

You have to understand the constraints around ARTC.  They are supposed to make a profit.  Oaklands-Benalla and Portland-Maroona are lines that ARTC struggles to get a return out of due to low volumes (compared to the coal lines and the intercity intermodal network).  Those two branches plus the rest of the SG network in Victoria would be better managed under a CRN style arrangement which seems to work well enough in NSW, though got to wornder if ARTC could spread fixed costs further if they had the whole SG CRN (Vic and NSW) under their management.

On ARTC I would change their mandate to cover costs with an annual cost saving dividend of x% (real terms) so as the commercial profitability/rate of return hurdle is removed from decision making in ARTC.

Yes, I've said this a few times now. We need a below rail operator where ALL the funding it receives goes to the freight only infrastructure and that only. It shouldn't be ARTC - they're useless. Just look at the Oaklands line, a line that has had hundreds of trains over the last couple years and it has only gone downhill. Although they would still be better than V/Line in many respects.

This conversation seems to be happening in multiple threads but I'll put this here

Looking at the ARTC system maps the only lines that ARTC leases in Vic are the DIRN (effectively Albury to Wolseley, neither of which are in Vic ) along with the Portland and Oaklands branches. This seems to be backed up by a quick glance at the V/Line Network Service Plan

Now those lines may be leased under the same lease or separate leases and the lease(s) may specify different maintenance requirements for different lines but I would have presumed that the lease(s) required ARTC to maintain the track to a certain standard

Therefore I am a bit puzzled as to why the Victorian Budget included funding for works on the Benalla > Oaklands line. Wasn't it ARTC who completed the recent works on the Portland branch?

All very confusing, I can't imagine ARTC refusing to do it and the Vics shrugging their shoulders and coughing up the cash. Is there something I am missing here?!?!?!?

If there is something missing it is a good end result.

Surely this sort of issue is something for the Rail Safety Regulator to audit and report on rather than whatever that they seem to occupy their time with.

There needs to be a National Auditor General of some sort to audit, investigate and report impartially on rail infrastructure safety, standards, projects and maintenance. Foolishly, I thought that the Rail Safety Regulator was supposed to undertake tasks of this nature when he/she/they (whatever) is not out to lunch with ARTC.

If there is something missing it is a good end result.

Surely this sort of issue is something for the Rail Safety Regulator to audit and report on rather than whatever that they seem to occupy their time with.

There needs to be a National Auditor General of some sort to audit, investigate and report impartially on rail infrastructure safety, standards, projects and maintenance. Foolishly, I thought that the Rail Safety Regulator was supposed to undertake tasks of this nature when he/she/they (whatever) is not out to lunch with ARTC.

I wonder if the removal of the CEO and the resultant direct reporting to the department/minister instead has caused this. Bit harder to cook the books to make it look better than it is.

MB poorly specced with less capacity than former BG -  who approved that ?  Poorly costed by Victoria - who oversaw that ?  Poorly project managed by Victoria - who oversaw that ?  Then Victoria bleats to the Feds and gets most of the funds to correct all teh aforesaid shortfalls on Victoria's watch. No wonder the Feds are reluctant to give Victoria any extra funds towards MB works until such time as Victoria can prove it can actually spec, cost and project something professionally within spitting distance of the budgetted cost.

If I was the feds, I would insist on a handover of the project to a non VLine entity (either like a NSW CRN arragement or ARTC itself) in exchange for any further funding.

Yes, I've said this a few times now. We need a below rail operator where ALL the funding it receives goes to the freight only infrastructure and that only. It shouldn't be ARTC - they're useless. Just look at the Oaklands line, a line that has had hundreds of trains over the last couple years and it has only gone downhill. Although they would still be better than V/Line in many respects.

Ironically in this case I would take ARTC over victrack. As bad as the ARTC are they are nowhere near as bad as victrack and the organisations that were supposed to organise the murray basin project. What really needs to be done is converting all of that track over to SG from BG. Only then will all the benefits come.